Is refusal to consumate marriage a mortal sin

[Psalm45_9]

UKcatholicGuy:

is refusal to consumate a marriage a sin? mortal? venial? church teaching?

No, Mary and Joseph never consumated their marriage. Their vow is known as the Nazareth vow. Many Saints took the Nazareth vow. St. Cecilia and her husband did, St. Therese’s parents wanted to, but their priest discouraged them, it’s a good thing they did; or the world would never know the little flower of Jesus.

 

[Thal59]

Huiou Theou,

The canon about consent hinges on matrimonial consent, which means the INTENTION to have children. Matrimony = children and by natural implication conjugal relations.<<

Isn’t this being presumptuous? How can one say that a marital couple “intends” to have children? There is no way of knowing whether the couple has decided in their hearts whether or not they want children regardless of what they may declare to the priest before marriage. My cousin Mark married a woman from India. They are married, (both civil and in a traditional Indian ceremony) and they have been intimate, but both had decided before marriage never to have children with each other. Since this was not a “Catholic” marriage, can one can say the gift of grace was absent from their marriage?

Yet, according to this thread, their marriage is valid and consummated. Furthermore, I have seen no discontentment on either partner’s part. They have been happily married for years. Does this prove the ineffectivness of the gift of grace given at a Catholic marriage?

More than anything else that has been discussed here is the point of “two becoming one flesh.” The two spouses become one flesh through their children, not through the simple-minded act of copulation. This is why I said in my original post…

Contrary to modern hedonistic thought, consumation of a marriage is not brought about by sexual interaction between the spouses, it is brought about by childbirth and rearing the child in the faith.<<

If you believe that the sexual act is what consumates the marriage, then can a rapist say his attack on a woman consummated their union? If two juvenile teenagers are having premarrital sex in the backseat of their car, can they say they have consummated their relationship?

Consumation means to perfect/complete something, or bring something to its totality. If consumation can be brought about in a marriage without children, then one is inferring that the procreation of children, as well as the roles of the spouses becoming parents, in no way brings their union to a greater state of completion or perfection. If a childless union is consummated (perfect in its marital totality) then childbirth cannot be said to even enhance or enoble that union.

No. The truism of becoming “one flesh” is in childbirth where the offspring are truly flesh and spirit of both parents. To subjugate this perfect physical and spiritual union to mere sexual intercourse is perverse. To say that the marriage is consummated as long as they casually intend to have children, regardless if one proves to be infertile, is to make the process more important than the finished product. It is like saying it is far more important to build the house than it is to have someone live in it; or that it is more important to build the car than to have someone drive it.

But a house that is never lived in, or a car that is never driven are useless. This is not to say that a childless marriage is useless, but without children, two people living together out of wedlock, who are commited to each other, and have no intention of having children have as valid and consummated a union as those who have received the marital blessing. Therefore, Catholic sacramental marriage and the gift of grace that we profess is given to the couple become superfluous.

The whole purpose of marriage is not to simply bring two people together for their mutual benefit, (although this is a part of the deal) because if this was the case, a man would receive as much from a mistress outside of marriage. The purpose of marriage is the orderly and dignified manner by which children are brought into the world in a loving family relationship. Rearing the child into the faith is equally as important.

This is why Jewish and Catholic mixed marriages will not occur unless the non-Jewish/non-Catholic member agrees beforehand to raise the children according to the faith. Without this vow, Judaism and Catholicism will not marry a person outside of the faith to someone who is in the faith.

Now if sexuallity and “potential” childbirth alone consumate the marriage, why do we not marry mixed-faith couples without this vow of rearing the children in the faith?

Thal59

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thal,

Isn’t this being presumptuous? How can one say that a marital couple “intends” to have children? There is no way of knowing whether the couple has decided in their hearts whether or not they want children regardless of what they may declare to the priest before marriage. My cousin Mark married a woman from India. They are married, (both civil and in a traditional Indian ceremony) and they have been intimate, but both had decided before marriage never to have children with each other. Since this was not a “Catholic” marriage, can one can say the gift of grace was absent from their marriage?

Yet, according to this thread, their marriage is valid and consummated. Furthermore, I have seen no discontentment on either partner’s part. They have been happily married for years. Does this prove the ineffectivness of the gift of grace given at a Catholic marriage?

Thal, your relatives has made it public to you that they do not wish to have children. So the knowledge is public.
When it comes to judging a particular case, a presumption has to be made only when the facts cannot be seen – that is the facts are TOTALLY invisible.
In the case you cite, it is clear that there is NO sacrament.
If I did not know the facts, out of charity I would assume they wanted children.
I would also need to ask – are they both baptized.
If not, then there is no sacrament.

Yet, according to this thread, their marriage is valid and consummated.

Um, no. I would not agree to that.
I would say that there is probably a natural marriage for the simple fact that they were married outside the church. It is likely in those kind of cases that some type of consent is missing because they are avoiding the witness of the Catholic Church.
I would very likely doubt the sacramentality of any wedding celebrated outside the Catholic Church, although it is a doubt and not a firm belief.

More than anything else that has been discussed here is the point of “two becoming one flesh.” The two spouses become one flesh through their children, not through the simple-minded act of copulation. This is why I said in my original post…

Contrary …

If you believe that the sexual act is what consumates the marriage, then can a rapist say his attack on a woman consummated their union? If two juvenile teenagers are having premarrital sex in the backseat of their car, can they say they have consummated their relationship?

Thal! obviously NOT. Where is the mutual consent in rape?
The teenagers in the back seat are closer, but do they intend to have children and is their consent free? Is there a passion involved which would lead one to say (as one obviously would) that mere fornication is taking place? There is no public act to declare their consent before God, why are they avoiding it?

To say that the marriage is consummated as long as they casually intend to have children, regardless if one proves to be infertile, is to make the process more important than the finished product.

I can really understand your frustration on this point.
But God is the one who opens and closes the womb,
we just perform the procreative act. A couple who is sterile may miraculously have a child at some point.
These sterile unions are clearly marriages even before the child is conceived. Given that we cannot know what God will do, we assume out of charity the sacramental marriage is in place. I firmly believe this is the case, and that many couples like this are called to adopt children.

I cannot answer the rest of the objections now, I will try to post later when I have time.

 

[patientone]

This is a very interesting thread as I have grappled with an unconsummated marriage due to the scarring my wife has
from being raped when she was an innocent child. I would like to
think that our attempts were not a sinful act and as much reserach
as I have done on this topic I am still in the fog.
Do I love her any less? No way; Am I frustrated? you better believe it.
We were married in the Catholic church and we are both Catholic
therefore our marriage is valid.

 

[Thal59]

Huiou Theou,

The same here HT. I will be going to work soon, so I can’t reply just now. I am leaving this to just let you know that I thoroughly enjoy these debates with you. They are so much more informative and intelligent than the pointless babble I use to put up with on Protestant websites.

While it may seem we are becoming sparring partners, please understand that I never intend to be arrogant, nor do I ever intend to reply out of anger or frustration. So please don’t make the mistake of thinking there may be some venom in my replies. It may only sound that way. It is just the way I write.

Thal59

 

[Catholic2003]

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

There might be a sinful agreement between those contracting marriage which likewise nullifies their marriage — e. g., not to have more than one or two children, or not to have any children at all, until, in the judgment of the contracting parties, circumstances shall enable them to be provided for; or to divorce and marry someone else whenever they grow tired of each other. Such an agreement or condition denies the perpetual duties of matrimony, limits matrimonial rights, suspends the duty consequent on the use and exercise of those rights; if really made a sine qua non of marriage, it necessarily annuls it; the parties would wish to enjoy connubial intercourse, but evade its consequences. The agreement to abstain from the use of conjugal rights is, however, quite different, and does not nullify the marriage contract. The parties to the marriage fully consent to transfer to each other the conjugal rights, but, by agreement or vow, oblige themselves to abstain from the actual use of those rights. Now, if, contrary to their agreement or vow, either party should demand the actual use of his or her right, it would not be fornication, though a breach of promise or vow. Such a condition, though possible, is not frequent nor even permissible except in cases of rare virtue.